Sunday, 4 November 2012

Jim Fixed It: the Real Savile Scandal

The Jimmy Savile scandal, presently erupting day by day like
a volcano, is another story I caught in part when I was abroad. What,
Jimmy Savile, the Jimmy Savile, Sir Jimmy Savile, the great
British cultural icon, was a paedophile? Now then, now then, guys and
gals, what next? Morecambe and Wise were into devil worship, perhaps?

Please forgive the conceit but I was wise before the
event. I never liked the man; I always thought him creepy, not the sort
of person I would want in the same room with me. Paul Merton highlighted
this once on Have I Got News For You, the comedy news quiz, when he drew a
comparison between Savile and Norman Bates from the movie Psycho. It was
in the context of his unhealthy attitude towards his mother, whom he referred
to as ‘the Duchess.’

I have a transcript from this show, one which never made it
on to the telly screens. It was recorded some years ago when Angus
Deayton was the host. Savile was the celebrity guest on Paul Merton’s
team. Allow me to give you a small sample from the opening;

During the headline round:

DEAYTON: You used to be a wrestler didn't you?

SAVILLE: I still am.

DEAYTON: Are you?

SAVILLE: I'm feared in every girls' school in the country.

(Audience laugh)

DEAYTON: Yeah, I've heard about that.

SAVILLE: What have you heard?

DEAYTON: I've...

MERTON: Something about a cunt with a rancid, pus-filled
cock.

(Huge audience laugh; Awkward pause)

SAVILLE: I advise you to wash your mouth out, my friend...

MERTON: That's what she had to do! (Audience laughs)

Don’t get too excited. It’s a hoax, dating back to
1999. But it revealed a truth that dare not speak its name. It was
based on rumours about the man’s sexual conduct, rumours that now appear to
have been based on fact. I say appear because the matter is
still sub judice, so to speak, a consideration the popular press has, in the
usual style, put to one side.

I should add, for those not familiar with Savile and all his
work, that he began his TV career as a DJ on a chart show called Top of the
Pops. Latterly he hosted Jim’ll Fix It, in which he ‘fixed it’ for
children to have their dreams come true.
It now seems he made their nightmares come true also.

There are so many aspects to this evolving story. It touches
on the semi-religious nature of modern celebrity, on the creation of false
idols, on the sublimation of suspicions and on the attitude of a major public
Corporation. The Corporation, of course, is the BBC and the creepy Savile
was their star. It comes down, if you like, to a question of priorities.

Savile died last October. In the usual manner the BBC
scheduled a tribute, to be broadcast at Christmas. Rather inconveniently
the right hand did not appear to know what the left hand was doing, the left-hand
in this case being Newsnight, a current affairs show. While the
glittering tribute was being assembled, Newsnight gathered the dirt. As
I’m sure you know – who could not know? – senior management allowed the cloying
celebration to go ahead while binning the Newsnight exposé.

It came out. These things can’t be hidden, and Savile
is not around to threaten and silence with super injunctions. The Great
British Public, in true Mark Anthony style, has turned on their hero: they want
to bury Savile, not to praise him. Rather, they want to heap his memory
in dead dogs. But if Savile is a Frankenstein Monster – and of that I
have not much personal doubt – he is their creation. Always beware the
passions of the multitude.

Scapegoats are being sought and the BBC has them
aplenty. Writing recently in the Spectator, John Simpson, the
Corporation’s world news editor, says that the organisation made, in his words,
a fearful mistake in not broadcasting the Savile exposé at the end of last
year.

No, that’s wrong; the ‘fearful mistake’ was allowing the
tribute show to go ahead, knowing full-well that questions were being raised
about their star’s past conduct. This looks to me like the worst kind of
opportunism and hypocrisy, qualities that now seem typical of the BBC.

I return to Savile himself. The celebrity of this
talentless, fumbling and inarticulate poseur is a wonder and a mystery to
behold. I agree with Charles Moore - also writing in the Spectator - that Savile’s popularity was a symptom of
a wider cultural sickness, an inability to probe below surfaces. It’s
rather nauseating to see the press in their daily demolition, when it did so
much to build up this mediocrity in the first place. A country that once
marvelled to the wit of Oscar Wilde latterly marvelled to the inanities of Jim
Fixing It. Perhaps that’s the real scandal.

People who enjoy great popularity inevitably accumulate envious enemies. Charlie Chaplin was another target, decades ago.

The BBC and the print media are both wallowing in the sort of mud wrestling contest that has become their most profitable form of exhibitionism - hurling filth and accusations at one another, barely conscious they are both equally covered in the stuff. Mendacious lawyers and greedy 'victims' have suddenly discovered their decades-old anguish can only be alleviated by license money and a dead man's fortune.

You can count yourself lucky Ana. I was exposed to his inane banter from about 1960 on Radio Luxembourg, and he was a turn-off even then. I never watched Top of the Pops when he was presenting. I think you picked exactly the right word to describe him: "creepy".

If I can pick you up on one point: you describe Savile as a "paedophile". Technically, paedophilia is sexual attraction/interest in prepubescent children. This in no way should be taken as condoning Savile's behaviour, which I regard as especially despicable because he clearly used his 'star' status to take advantage of his victims. However, the difference between Savile's activities and paedophilia is one of kind rather than one of degree. I think it is important to draw this distinction, because I suspect that, based on the number of men 'of good standing in the community' who are arrested for possession of child pornography, paedophilia is more widespread than we would like to think.

A "symptom of a wider cultural sickness," yes - and from the coverage I've seen there is unsurprisingly not much wider soul-searching in the UK on account of this story, when there really should be. The focus is on the individual and a few people in or around the BBC. The reality is that modern Britain is a place that breaks the heart because it is so, so far from what it should be.

Like you, Ana, I was never a fan of Jimmy Savile, and was equally confused by his celebrity - and doubtless he is guilty of 'some' of the things he is rather belatedly being accused of. However, I fear all is not well with many of the claims being made, with some not standing up to even the most cursory examination.Have a look at this:

How are the mighty fallen and quite right too in his case. I recall back in 1980 or so a friend of mine assuring me that Savile cheated as a Marathon runner, covering most of the course in a Roll Royce.

So many now say they were never fans of Saville, so who were all the members of the public that made him popular, the audiences droning around him (some of who may even have been the victims). I used to watch Jim'll Fix It. This whole Saville fiasco is turning very ugly. Anne Robinson in The Guardian on 15 October sounds as if to say it was all hunky dory when it was Tom Jones but if it were somebody else it would have been considered abuse. I feel it's a bit too late in the day to dig up the dirt now and very difficult to establish facts but what happened (assuming the allegations are largely true) was very wrong. It is also interesting to see the shift in dynamics when a female in high position seduces males!

About Me

Hi, I'm Ana! History is my passion -and that is not too strong a word - but I also enjoy politics, philosophy, art, literature and travel. In addition I have a deep interest in witchcraft, in all of the ancient arts. Apart from that I'm a keen sportswoman. I play lacrosse and tennis, but I love riding most of all. I have my own horse, Annette.